| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
ThoughtsThoughtsPosted Feb 19, 2007 5:44 UTC (Mon) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287)In reply to: Fedora 7 release delayed by kornak Parent article: Fedora 7 release delayed
I think you are proposing the very sort of licensing anarchy the Fedora folks are assiduously trying to avoid. There are already plenty of repo sites that cater to those who wish to put anything of any origin on their Fedora systems. And that's OK (at least to a point...). But such repos don't call themselves "Fedora" anything, and it appears Fedora wishes to keep it that way.
(Log in to post comments)
Thoughts Posted Feb 19, 2007 8:14 UTC (Mon) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] Forgive me, but I was not proposing anthing of the sort. Where did you getlicensing scheme from my comments? I simply proposed a more distributed scheme which is by its very nature under the communities control rather than a central entity. How does this propose a proprietaty licensing scheme? The masses decide because they may build or distribute the packages. One might subscribe to a central authority as well as a few peers you trust. This has the side benefit of providing a popularity rating for each package.
Thoughts Posted Feb 19, 2007 22:35 UTC (Mon) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] Rightly or perhaps wrongly, I got the idea that Fedora would likely lose control of its repository license scheme from"Centrallizing a vast repository is always troublesome. I propose the reverse, more distribution of repositories. I envision repositories growing quickly in a peer to peer fashion with a web of trust." From your reply, I gather license impurity was not your intent at all. (I rather doubted it was in the first place.) I am pointing out that it is a likely consequence. You seem to think such can be avoided through suitable guidelines and safeguards. I remain skeptical, though I do agree that one big pile of garbage is harder to maintain than several smaller ones. Just harder under which to hide incriminating evidence :) I used to have a list of three or four indie repos that I used with a now-defunct FC5 install. Livna was one, there were several others. Most were good at what they did, made no pretense, and played well with others. How does such differ from what you propose? My point is that Fedora wishes to ensure, to the extent possible, that anything associated with the "Fedora" mark meets Fedora's licensing requirements. And if there is a distributed P2P repo way of doing that then fine, we're in agreement. Thanks!
Thoughts Posted Feb 20, 2007 2:10 UTC (Tue) by kornak (guest, #17589) [Link] Perhaps my ideas where mis-interpreted, but, I simply proposed a lesscentralized methodology for Fedora. If it is a "Fedora" signed package, then it will hold true to the "Fedora" ideals. I think this merging will in the end be counter-productive as it will increase the burden on Fedora to maintain the lot. Perhaps the P2P argument doesn't fit in to this particular argument, but it does extend the idea of a more distributed repository model. The primary differnce in my idea of using P2P is that packages can be maintained centrally or be distributed and still be Fedora packages, or they could be "liva", or "atrpms", or "dries, etc. The more we have in the game the better. With P2P, anybody can join the game, even if they have a single package or script they wish to share. Whether they choose GPL or BSD or whatever is entirely up to them. This does not taint Fedora as only Fedora can sign their own packages.
|
|
||||||||||||